A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Zak, I edited the grammar of sin/sins. I originally kept it singular because I feel unbelief/rebellion/selfishness/godlessness are essentially the same root and related sins. If the Greatest Commandment is to love God and others with our whole hearts, then the greatest sin is to not love God and others with our whole being. Rejection of Christ to death is the only unforgiveable sin.

Thanks for clarifying. From a logical viewpoint, why isn't "the unforgiveable sin" the greatest sin? :think:

Sin is primarily against a Holy God, not just hurting others: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight..." Ps. 51:4

Your definition is only applicable if you believe in a deity... which I don't. So, for me, sin is causing unecessary pain to others. If there is a diety, he's included in "others" (i.e. anyone not oneself).

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Unbelief is not ignorance.

Unbelief is merely "lack of belief"; just like unjust is lack of justice. The reason one may not have belief is usually ignorance.

You seem to be confusing belief with [/i]obedience[/i] or submission. Mere belief in deity does not automatically equal obedience, as the example of the Christian "Satan" illustrates.

It is denial. You are not ignorant of the truth, Zakath. You just deny it.

Notice that total silence and non-existence are very difficult to tell apart from the perspective of the listener... your deity is silent, except to a few strange folks who claim to hear voices, etc.

It is a choice, more than you know. It is what you have chosen.

I have chosen the path of evidence. I find no more compelling evidence for the existence of your deity than for that of Odin or Vishnu.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Zakath

Thanks for clarifying. From a logical viewpoint, why isn't "the unforgiveable sin" the greatest sin? :think:

Your definition is only applicable if you believe in a deity... which I don't. So, for me, sin is causing unecessary pain to others. If there is a diety, he's included in "others" (i.e. anyone not oneself).

Deity, not Diety.

Not loving Christ with your whole heart is rejecting Him. So, the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ to your death bed which is the same as not loving Him supremely in the end.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Zakath


Notice that total silence and non-existence are very difficult to tell apart from the perspective of the listener... your deity is silent, except to a few strange folks who claim to hear voices, etc.

Many have found the Bible to be the Word of God (revelation).

Others see evidence of a Creator in the complexity of creation.

Others have heard the voice of God.

Others see the invisible God in the person and work of the historical God-Man, Jesus Christ (incarnation, death, resurrection...you know, Christmas and Easter).

"He is there and He is not silent." - Francis Schaeffer

God is not sky writing, nor is He silent. The problem is with your heart and spiritual ears as you suppress the screaming truth (the heavens and His people declare the glory of God; Ps. 19; Rom. 1).

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Deity, not Diety.

I stand (or sit, since I'm typing) corrected.

Not loving Christ with your whole heart is rejecting Him. So, the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ to your death bed which is the same as not loving Him supremely in the end.

But why is that differentiated from the "greatest" sin. Aren't they one and the same, at least from a human perspective?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Many have found the Bible to be the Word of God (revelation).

And many billions have not...

Others see evidence of a Creator in the complexity of creation.

Again, many do not see such evidence.

Others have heard the voice of God.

Yes, so they claim. Over the years I've counselled a number of people who alleged to have heard from various "gods" and other supernatural entities. All of them turned out to be delusional...

Others see the invisible God in the person and work of the historical God-Man, Jesus Christ (incarnation, death, resurrection...you know, Christmas and Easter).

And other billions see invisible things at work through the stories of their deities. Your stories are just a handful of hundreds of such stories in human history.

"He is there and He is not silent." - Francis Schaeffer

Shaeffer is dead and his deity is still silent so far as we know...

God is not sky writing,...

True. If he was, we might have clear testimony of his existence, not dependent on humans interepreting things one way or another.

... nor is He silent.

He is to me.

The problem is with your heart and spiritual ears as you suppress the screaming truth (the heavens and His people declare the glory of God; Ps. 19; Rom. 1).

The heavens move in silent (to human ears) majesty along what C.S. Lewis termed "the great dance" throughout ages. Religious people screaming is nothing new in history. Screamers have claimed to represent "the truth" of a plethora of deities over the last ten thousand years or so... your deity is just one of thousands.

 

[godrulz]

Was your spelling of Deity a typo or a wrong conception?

If you were wrong on that while thinking you were right all these years, could you be wrong about the existence of God?

What was your response to the idea that you would have to be an omniscient God to dogmatically say that God does not exist? Outside your limited realm of knowledge (we know a fraction of all the knowable reality in the universe), is it not possible that God exists? If it is possible, then maybe you are an agnostic (or do you have final proof that God is not there)?

 

[OMEGA]

ZAK said,

Yes, so they claim. Over the years I've counselled a number of people who alleged to have heard from various "gods" and other supernatural entities. All of them turned out to be delusional...

====

Zak ,

Ah , now I see why you post here.

You are trying to counsel these here

whom you think are dilusional.

That is an commendable attitude.

You are taking pity on us wretched souls.





:angel:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Hey, bro. I think you have circular reasoning/begging the question/assuming what you are trying to prove in relation to the law, sin, and OSAS.

The original autorgraphs of Scripture are objective, infallible truth.

MSS are very accurate, but may have isolated variations or errors (minor).

Our interpretations are subjective at times, but we can know the truth. We are prone to having preconceived ideas and reading them back into Scripture vs exegesis.

Even before the law was given (Exodus), we had murder (Genesis). Just because there was no written law, does not mean there was not an eternal moral law of God based on His character and being.

What happened to Cain? God let him live! Why, because though what he did was wrong, there was no law against it.:doh:

Just because believers are not under ceremonial laws, does not mean that sin is not sin, or that the unchanging law of God has no relevance to us.

See, if you would look at the definition of sin, and change one word, accordingly, then this would be exactly what I said. It is still wrong to murder, commit adultery, steal...but it is not counted as sin agains those who are in Christ. Now, the meaning of 'in Christ' must be explained in order to explain the meaning of this idea, but it isn't really that hard. Those who are in Christ are not going to go around doing these things. That is simple truth. That is how I can stand by my statements.

We do not keep the law to be saved (grace through face), but we live consistent with His moral law because we are in Christ and saved.

Precisely! We are righteous, solely because He has made us righteous. And we live consistent with that, because we have been made righteous. And we are not condemned when we fall, for the same reason.

Whether believer or unbeliever, we agreed that we can fornicate, adulterate, murder. This is sin against a Holy God. I think the rest of your argument that if there is no law for us (wrong assumption...Jesus summarized the Law as loving God and others which still includes the relational and moral details of the Decalogue), then somehow there is no sin.

What I have siad is that it is not called sin. And that it is not counted against us, or imputed to us. And I am not assuming anything. Read Romans 6:14:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Objectively there is sin whether the law is there or not.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
-1 John 3:4
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
-Romans 4:15

The law is that which condemns us and makes us aware of sin and its sanctions for breaking the Law.

The law convicts the godless of sin, not those He has made righteous. Those He has made righteous are made aware of their wrongs by the Holy Spirit. We are not convicted, for we have already been declared innocent, by the Judge of all creation. Conviction is followed by condemnation. We are neither.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
-Romans 8:1

So, I think you get into circular reasoning and pull ideas together like there is no condemnation in Christ (true), we are not under law, etc. (there is something missing in your understanding of the verse in Romans that you are taking too literally out of context with general teaching elsewhere...follow Paul's argument closer with the eyes of the early Christian/Jewish background).

Do you think Sozo and I agree with elohyim? If so, then you need to know that we do not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

Unbelief is merely "lack of belief"; just like unjust is lack of justice. The reason one may not have belief is usually ignorance.

Well, okay then, you are ignorant.

You seem to be confusing belief with [/i]obedience[/i] or submission. Mere belief in deity does not automatically equal obedience, as the example of the Christian "Satan" illustrates.

Nope. There is belief, and there is faith. Neither are obedience, but faith leads to obedience.

Notice that total silence and non-existence are very difficult to tell apart from the perspective of the listener... your deity is silent, except to a few strange folks who claim to hear voices, etc.

I do not hear Him, audibly, but He is nowhere near silent. In the words of a song, "He is not silent/He is not whispering/...We are not listening." So, my stance is that you are not listening.

I have chosen the path of evidence. I find no more compelling evidence for the existence of your deity than for that of Odin or Vishnu.

Then open your heart, so that you may see, hear, taste, smell and touch all that He is.

 

[Lighthouse]

Zakath-
What are you referring to as the greatest sin?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

See, if you would look at the definition of sin, and change one word, accordingly, then this would be exactly what I said. It is still wrong to murder, commit adultery, steal...but it is not counted as sin agains those who are in Christ. Now, the meaning of 'in Christ' must be explained in order to explain the meaning of this idea, but it isn't really that hard. Those who are in Christ are not going to go around doing these things. That is simple truth. That is how I can stand by my statements.




"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
-1 John 3:4
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
-Romans 4:15

Those who are in Christ are not going to continually, habitually sin (based on Greek present, continuous tense). Those outside of Christ habitually live in sin and will be eternally condemned. There is a difference between will not sin, and CANNOT sin. You state that believers can commit adultery, murder, fornicate. These are all sins. I agree that believers should not sin and that it is not normative to sin. Reality is that it is theoretically possible to sin (if we have free moral agency). Those believers who do not sin fulfill God's intention for them. Those believers who 'fall' are expected to repent, make restitution, renew obedience, etc.

I Jn. 3:4 The antichrists took sin lightly. A person who sins does what is wicked, and sin is wickedness. Sin must not be taken lightly. New birth involves purification from sin. 3:3 says that we are to purify ourselves because we have the hope of Christ in us and a future glorification. We are to be pure as He is pure. 3:4-6 Sin is breaking the law (lawlessness). He takes away our sins. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning (present, continuous, habitual tense). If we continue in persistent sin we show that we are not in Him. This is not a proof text to preclude the possibility of sin as evidenced in the rest of I John that implies the possibility, but not necessity of sin for a believer.

Rom. 4:15 (cf. 5:13) Context=Abraham's (Jewish) justification by faith. 4:1-8 by faith, not by works; 4:9-12 by faith, not by circumcision rites;

4:13-17 by faith, not by the Law... (Witmer) The Jews also considered the Mosaic Law, a special revelation of God's standards for human conduct, as the basis for their special standing before God...Paul=It was not through Law that Abraham/offspring received the promise...God's promise in Gen. 12 preceded Law by several centuries...all the world is blessed...righteousness by faith= promises of blessing...believers enjoy the spiritual blessing of justification...if Jews could become heirs by obeying the Law, then faith has no value and the promise is worthless. The reason is that the Law brings wrath as a consequence of disobedience. No one can keep the Law fully; therefore God, in wrath against sin, judges those who disobey.

Paul then stated a related general principle (remember the above context instead of 4:15 being a proof text with ideas beyond the context like believers can sin, but it is not really sin...adultery, murder, etc.)....where there is no law, there is no transgression. A person may still be sinning in his action, but if there is no command prohibiting it, his action does not have the character of a transgression, an overstepping of a prohibition (5:13= sin entered the world before the Law...God still called it sin! "Before/until the law was given, sin was in the world". This does not mean that sin does not exist until there is Law. It is still a sin before a Holy God. The Law makes it apparent to us that it is a transgression as it condemns us for violating it.

Someone may break a law without realizing it (we do not know all the laws of the land). It is still a violation and ignorance is not an excuse (though it may be factored in with sentencing).

Phillips 4:14,15 "In contrast with the promise of the Lord are the precepts of the Law. Paul makes two very sobering observations about these.

First, the Law undermines faith (v.14). If the Jew could inherit the promises by their own efforts, that is, by keeping the rules of the Mosaic Law, then the unconditional promise of God is made invalid...If salvation is on the basis of 'trying', then it is not on the basis of 'trusting'. But it is faith, not works; grace, not law; belief, not behavior, which is the basis and foundation of all that God gives."

Do we agree? Yes? Then quit saying I believe in works salvation and am not saved!

"The law not only UNDERMINES faith, it also UNDERLINES failure (v.15). The practical outcome of the law of Moses was to condemn not save, for it showed just how far a person had come short of God's standard (a school teacher that brings us to Christ, who saves us- rulz). A soul awakened by the thunderings of the Law surely should flee back to the promise, not try to scale the quaking, fire-bathed sides of Sinai.
So then, Paul has cut away all the ground from underneath the feet of those who insist on trying for salvation. They have no righteousness acceptable to God. Their religious exercises are futile, for neither the rites nor rules even of religion can save. Salvation is by faith, and by faith alone."

Agree? So quit saying I believe in works salvation! Do not go beyond the intended interpretation and context to make some doctrine about Christians and sin. Paul was not addressing your application here.

4:16 The promise comes by faith (response to grace) so that it may be of grace.

Careful about stringing two proof texts together to support your ideas apart from the immediate contexts of each passage (exegesis like the above commentaries attempt). Romans 4 is talking about Jews and justification, not Christians and subsequent sanctification. I John distinguished ongoing, godless sin of an unbeliever from the isolated lapse of a believer.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by OMEGA

ZAK said,

Yes, so they claim. Over the years I've counselled a number of people who alleged to have heard from various "gods" and other supernatural entities. All of them turned out to be delusional...

====

Zak ,

Ah , now I see why you post here.

You are trying to counsel these here

whom you think are dilusional.

That is an commendable attitude.

You are taking pity on us wretched souls.

We all have our part to play in the drama called life, OMEGA.

I do my small bit the best I know how. :angel:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Was your spelling of Deity a typo or a wrong conception?

Typo. I accepted your correction previously...

If you were wrong on that while thinking you were right all these years, could you be wrong about the existence of God?

If you're insinuating that I might be wrong about the existence of deity because I'm not infallible... the possiblity exists, certainly. Although, based on what I've seen to date, it's a very small possiblity. Small enough that I'm comfortable living with it.

What was your response to the idea that you would have to be an omniscient God to dogmatically say that God does not exist? Outside your limited realm of knowledge (we know a fraction of all the knowable reality in the universe), is it not possible that God exists? If it is possible, then maybe you are an agnostic (or do you have final proof that God is not there)?

Thank you for trotting out that old canard...

One does not have to know everything to be reasonably certain that something is not likely to be true.

• For example, I've never been to the North Pole, but I'm reasonably certain that no overweight elf in a fur trimmed red velvet suit lives there and annually delivers the toys made by his elven minions to good little girls and boys around the world.
  
  After examining evidence, I am reasonably certain that one of my former clients did not have the psychic ability to damage household electrical appliances with the power of her mind, nor did I believe her claims that she was the daughter of Adolf Hitler and spoke to him every week by mental telepathy.
  
  I am reasonably certain that Odin, Vishnu, or Allah do not exist as deities either. The evidence that allegedly exists to demonstrate their existence is not sufficiently compelling for me to believe in them.

I apply the same rational process that I follow to a reasonable certainty that those deities do not exist with every deity I run across. Thus far, they all fail a test of reasonable certainty, including yours.

One does not have to know everything to be reasonably certain of some things.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Well, okay then, you are ignorant.

I am ignorant of any compelling (to me) evidence to believe in your deity.

Nope. There is belief, and there is faith. Neither are obedience, but faith leads to obedience.

You missed the point again. :doh:

One may believe in your deity, yet refuse to follow him. Satan is the example that Christians use for that condition of existence.

Others, like atheists, do not believe in your deity and refuse to follow that in which they do not believe.

I do not hear Him, audibly, but He is nowhere near silent. In the words of a song, "He is not silent/He is not whispering/...We are not listening." So, my stance is that you are not listening.

Merely because you claim to hear something is not, by itself, significant proof that what you claim to hear actually exists until your claim can be collaborated by unbiased observation.

Then open your heart, so that you may see, hear, taste, smell and touch all that He is.

Thanks for the poetic turn, but as I've said before... been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

... and, as another song says, "I ain't goin' back to bondage no mo'..."

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Zakath-
What are you referring to as the greatest sin?

Greatest indicates some sort of hierarchy...

I would think that "greatest" is that which ticks off the deity the most... probably stealing from the collection plate

I was merely trying to get godrulz to parse the difference between degree and intent...

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Those who are in Christ are not going to continually, habitually sin (based on Greek present, continuous tense). Those outside of Christ habitually live in sin and will be eternally condemned. There is a difference between will not sin, and CANNOT sin. You state that believers can commit adultery, murder, fornicate. These are all sins. I agree that believers should not sin and that it is not normative to sin. Reality is that it is theoretically possible to sin (if we have free moral agency). Those believers who do not sin fulfill God's intention for them. Those believers who 'fall' are expected to repent, make restitution, renew obedience, etc.

Our disagreement here is the definition of sin. What does the word of God say? Have I misquoted it? Why do you continue to tell me that what I say, what the Bible says, sin is is wrong?

I Jn. 3:4 The antichrists took sin lightly. A person who sins does what is wicked, and sin is wickedness. Sin must not be taken lightly. New birth involves purification from sin. 3:3 says that we are to purify ourselves because we have the hope of Christ in us and a future glorification. We are to be pure as He is pure. 3:4-6 Sin is breaking the law (lawlessness). He takes away our sins. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning (present, continuous, habitual tense). If we continue in persistent sin we show that we are not in Him. This is not a proof text to preclude the possibility of sin as evidenced in the rest of I John that implies the possibility, but not necessity of sin for a believer.

:doh::nono:

Are you saying that Paul is wrong? Or are you saying that John and Paul disagree, and that you agree with John, over Paul?

[qutoe]Rom. 4:15 (cf. 5:13) Context=Abraham's (Jewish) justification by faith. 4:1-8 by faith, not by works; 4:9-12 by faith, not by circumcision rites;

4:13-17 by faith, not by the Law... (Witmer) The Jews also considered the Mosaic Law, a special revelation of God's standards for human conduct, as the basis for their special standing before God...Paul=It was not through Law that Abraham/offspring received the promise...God's promise in Gen. 12 preceded Law by several centuries...all the world is blessed...righteousness by faith= promises of blessing...believers enjoy the spiritual blessing of justification...if Jews could become heirs by obeying the Law, then faith has no value and the promise is worthless. The reason is that the Law brings wrath as a consequence of disobedience. No one can keep the Law fully; therefore God, in wrath against sin, judges those who disobey.[/quote]
They wouldn't have obeyed the law, if not for faith. There are acts of disobedience, and those acts are wrong, immoral, unprofitable and all sorts of other things. But, according to the Biblical definition of sin, these acts are not defined as sin.

Paul then stated a related general principle (remember the above context instead of 4:15 being a proof text with ideas beyond the context like believers can sin, but it is not really sin...adultery, murder, etc.)....where there is no law, there is no transgression. A person may still be sinning in his action, but if there is no command prohibiting it, his action does not have the character of a transgression, an overstepping of a prohibition (5:13= sin entered the world before the Law...God still called it sin! "Before/until the law was given, sin was in the world". This does not mean that sin does not exist until there is Law. It is still a sin before a Holy God. The Law makes it apparent to us that it is a transgression as it condemns us for violating it.

Before there was the law, there were still rules, that were commands. There are no longer any commands for Christians. But that doesn't mean Christians have the license to go about doing these things. In fact, they have the freedom to not do them. And freedom from the condemnation that would come with them, outside of grace.

Someone may break a law without realizing it (we do not know all the laws of the land). It is still a violation and ignorance is not an excuse (though it may be factored in with sentencing).

I know this. But the Bible is clear that there is no law for Christians. This isn't that there are laws we don't know, it is that there are no laws.

Phillips 4:14,15 "In contrast with the promise of the Lord are the precepts of the Law. Paul makes two very sobering observations about these.

First, the Law undermines faith (v.14). If the Jew could inherit the promises by their own efforts, that is, by keeping the rules of the Mosaic Law, then the unconditional promise of God is made invalid...If salvation is on the basis of 'trying', then it is not on the basis of 'trusting'. But it is faith, not works; grace, not law; belief, not behavior, which is the basis and foundation of all that God gives."

Do we agree? Yes? Then quit saying I believe in works salvation and am not saved!

I did not say you were not saved. I said I feared you may not be, but I never said I was certain you weren't. What I am sure of is that you don't understand the nature of slavation...or the power. And you believe that we must continue in obedience, instead of simply trusting in Christ to keep us on the narrow way and not lead us into temptation.

"The law not only UNDERMINES faith, it also UNDERLINES failure (v.15). The practical outcome of the law of Moses was to condemn not save, for it showed just how far a person had come short of God's standard (a school teacher that brings us to Christ, who saves us- rulz). A soul awakened by the thunderings of the Law surely should flee back to the promise, not try to scale the quaking, fire-bathed sides of Sinai.
So then, Paul has cut away all the ground from underneath the feet of those who insist on trying for salvation. They have no righteousness acceptable to God. Their religious exercises are futile, for neither the rites nor rules even of religion can save. Salvation is by faith, and by faith alone."

Agree? So quit saying I believe in works salvation! Do not go beyond the intended interpretation and context to make some doctrine about Christians and sin. Paul was not addressing your application here.

The law is for condemnation, and we are not condemned. Are we? Why? Because we have no law!

4:16 The promise comes by faith (response to grace) so that it may be of grace.

Careful about stringing two proof texts together to support your ideas apart from the immediate contexts of each passage (exegesis like the above commentaries attempt). Romans 4 is talking about Jews and justification, not Christians and subsequent sanctification. I John distinguished ongoing, godless sin of an unbeliever from the isolated lapse of a believer.

The main issue is the definition of sin. Sin is not about immorality, it is about unrighteousness, and God has cleansed us from all unrighteousness. And He will keep us, and never leave us. He will never let us go. He will seek us out to lead us back to Him, if we spend time away.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

I am ignorant of any compelling (to me) evidence to believe in your deity.

Don't like potshots being taken at you, eh?

You missed the point again. :doh:

No I didn't. Salvation has nothing to do with obedience. It is by Christ living in us that we live in Him. And that is subsequent to slavation, not the means of.

One may believe in your deity, yet refuse to follow him. Satan is the example that Christians use for that condition of existence.

See above.

Others, like atheists, do not believe in your deity and refuse to follow that in which they do not believe.

Apart from the ones about God, and worship, do you follow the commandments? Or do you murder, commit adultery, and the like?

Merely because you claim to hear something is not, by itself, significant proof that what you claim to hear actually exists until your claim can be collaborated by unbiased observation.

I wasn't trying to convince you. 'm just saying that He is not silent, you're simply not listening.

Thanks for the poetic turn, but as I've said before... been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

And you weren't listening then, either.

... and, as another song says, "I ain't goin' back to bondage no mo'..."

You've never left bondage, Zak.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

Greatest indicates some sort of hierarchy...

I was wondering why you thought there was a difference between the greatest sin, and the unforgivable sin. I would think they were one and the same.

I would think that "greatest" is that which ticks off the deity the most... probably stealing from the collection plate

Well, tithing isn't done correctly, in most churches, so I don't think that would be an issue. Definitely no the greatest infraction.

I was merely trying to get godrulz to parse the difference between degree and intent...

Intent is intent. All sins have the same amount of intent. And they have the same intent, as well. Selfishness/greed. But there are greater degrees, depending on the degree of harm to oneself, or others.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

We are to be pure as He is pure. 3:4-6 Sin is breaking the law (lawlessness). He takes away our sins. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning (present, continuous, habitual tense).

Here are some of the different ways I have heard this term described...

"Sin is... breaking the 10 commandments"
"Sin is... not loving God, or your neighbor"
"Sin is... missing the mark"
"Sin is... is a state of existence"
"Sin is... life apart from God"
"Sin is... lawlessness"
"Sin is... unrighteosness" and so on...


God is perfect, and we humans, have vague ideas what perfection entails, and so we may speculate, but it cannot be fully understood. Perfection is foreign to our way of thinking. It is well above our perception, because we live in a world where nothing is perfect. Only God, and his kingdom possess the true reality of absolute perfection. It's scope is mind boggling! The best we can do is simply admit that God is perfect, whatever that is, and we are not.

In Genesis 17:1 God confronts Abram

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect"

And Jesus related this same message in Matthew 5:48

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

"God demands me to be as perfect as He is?" Yes, this is exactly what God demands, not only of Abram or those within earshot of Jesus at the time He spoke, but God demands absolute perfection of everyone, in every area of their life at all times. Anything short of this, is sin.

In relation to the Law given by God, James writes:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

In other words, James makes it clear that, if you are perfect in every way, except one, you are guilty of being imperfect in all ways!

Fairly stringent, wouldn't you say? I think it even goes much deeper than we can comprehend. First of all, perfection belongs solely to God. We have no absolute idea what it is, and that makes it very hard to attain.

Not only can we do nothing wrong in order to be perfect, we must also perform every possible good to be perfect. And both of these must be in word, thought, and deed.

Jesus touched on not only the demand to obey God's Laws in our actions, but also in our thoughts.

In Matthew Jesus tells us:

"…that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Also...

"…whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

Jesus went as far as to tell one man:

"…go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor"

and another...

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

Paul himself wrote as he quoted David:

"There is none who does good, There is not even one."

It amazes me that godrulz actually thinks that he has the ability to compare himself to God's standard of perfection, and then to make judgements as to whether or not he or us are falling short!

The fact is... No one comes remotely close to perfection in any area of their life, and according to our thoughts, actions, words, deeds, we do nothing but sin. However, those who are in Christ, have been set free from sin!

...quit saying I believe in works salvation

But, YOU keep saying that YOU do...

Those believers who 'fall' are expected to repent, make restitution, renew obedience, etc.